My words (below) were put together (inspired) by what Bobo constructed (strung together) and what Basil earlier replied to regarding children and his now-departed parent.

We are not at the innocent age anymore. Among thousands of people, you meet those you've met. Through thousands of years, with the boundlessness of time, you happen to meet them, neither earlier or a bit too late.

This is what we called "fate".

Last edited by Tomas on Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

When I hear someone speaking of enjoying, work for all of us, good kids, means nothing to me, it rings me some bells. It seems that you could've stung an apology to pedophilia with it.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/19/trauma_myth_interview/singleton/ wrote:"when he was 9 years old, the man said, a friend of the family had sexually molested him over a six-month period. The man kept the abuse a secret from his wife and family for more than 30 years and was struggling with feelings of shame and problems at work. But this wasn’t nearly as surprising as what he revealed next: When the sexual abuse was happening, the man said, he wasn’t even upset."

"They are an endless source of amusement that somehow more than make up for all the foul poo poo diapers."
Kids doesn't have the cognitive skills of adults, so yours and their source of enjoyment is not the ultimate word on the matter. Child abuse will occur because of their poor skills, and lack of options. They will love anyone that provides them with a minimum of care, until they realize they have been scammed.

"They would only hate you if you hated yourself."
When they get to their teens, it becomes more evident, that financial, social, emotional, coercion is happening (where's all the love gonne?).

"Of course it all come down to money. If you had even a modest income that could support yourself and the child, you would find that children are far from useless."
Then they grow up, they are too old, you are too old, now they have to support you.

cousinbasil wrote:Not sure what the "it" refers to here.

Yep 'it' is ambiguous. Refers to all of it. The good, the bad, and specially the kids. : P"We are not at the innocent age anymore."
You can't bring the argument of ignorance anymore, offspring is not magic. It's cheap and easy to prevent it.

"Since everybody dies sooner or later, it would seem that mortality would be obvious to everybody. All the more reason to enjoy life's fleeting moments."
Mortality is not obvious to children, how do you tell them when they are six: "Son, you should have had a lot of joy in your life, but now you have terminal cancer, you are going feel ill for some months and bye-bye, not my fault, if I just knew it, blame god." lol. Or if they are mentally ill.
But not only there's a chance of a pretty bad disease, but you must know that once they've hit their age, they will have to work 8 hours a day, until they are old enough to die, this impacts yours and others peoples life's, and on and on. Looking not only at your offspring, but to the 7 billion, famine, war, and slave labour, to keep with the big ones (and we're the wheels on the machine). I can't see how people are enjoying their life's, by any standard you may try to make.
"But most people never witness the death of their children. Most people do go through the death of a parent. I already have, and I didn't cry in anyone's hat or anywhere else. It was his time - I was relieved. Changing the poo-poo diapers of babies is bad enough. Changing them for one's parent is decidedly worse."
I think most people do avoid the thought of death, (why the mourning?), people will cry because they see other persons as a personal property, you should do what they tell you to do, and dying is not on the list, dead people don't do that much.

If death is unavoidable life is not. We still got to fight for basic resources. And people want joy in their life.
Besides of your ego investment and hopes for the future, why would you want to have kids?
How is having kids different from murder?
Doing something that you know will lead to someones death. After a good time of slavery.

cousinbasil wrote:Death is just a transition. Even if it were not, if it were final, it could not be wicked. That would imply a malevolent intent, which death does not have - it has no intent.

I mean that intent will cease against it's intent... That's wicked.

Alex Jacob wrote:"I could make an argument that we have to listen very, very carefully when that mocking laughter comes our way. Do you remember the scene in The Fall by Camus...on the bridge? We have to carefully listen to the ironical laughter and determine where, in fact, it comes from. And from that I would make an argument that if someone is mocking me (little old me!) I would do well to try to understand why, because at the end of all ironies...is the creator itself. There are certain kinds of laughter that if you follow them back...Well, I'll say no more. (And hope that much is implied). "

The fall, remembers me of how kids will sometimes fall and parents will laugh about it, "it is was nothing" hehe, so kids will laugh when they fall, instead of crying. Sometimes people will laugh of someone else when they fall. It's entertainment. Hehehe, but the double-think, really enters when you are on the business making slaves and killing people, "I have kids, and got to survive", hehhehe, hypocrite, now to kill is to survive, if you are surviving then why are you dying?
"He said that, he was surviving, now he is dead, in the coffin and cold, if alive we could, powerless we mourn". hehehehe.

cousinbasil: So I will enjoy it and I will see to it that the kids in my life enjoy theirs.
They are turning out to be good kids, but it is work for all of us.Bobo: Kind of dodgy.cousinbasil: How so?Bobo: When I hear someone speaking of enjoying, work for all of us, good kids, means nothing to me, it rings me some bells. It seems that you could've stung an apology to pedophilia with it.

WTF are you talking about, Bobo? WTF do you mean "stung an apology to pedophilia with it"? What does that even mean? It's vaguely insulting - vaguely because your meaning as usual is opaque. I think in your Cro Magnon way, you are linking what I said with pedophilia. That's just stupid. If pedophilia bells are being rung for you from what I wrote, I think that says way more about you than you intended.

cousinbasil: They are an endless source of amusement that somehow more than make up for all the foul poo poo diapers.Bobo: Kids doesn't have the cognitive skills of adults, so yours and their source of enjoyment is not the ultimate word on the matter. Child abuse will occur because of their poor skills, and lack of options. They will love anyone that provides them with a minimum of care, until they realize they have been scammed.

Ultimate word on what matter? What fucking child abuse? Are you borderline retarded? Are you saying because child abuse occurs, no one should have or love children? What scam? You may be watching a little too much TV, a little overdoing the L&O SVU.

How is having kids different from murder?

I rest my case. If you need this explained, it would have to be by someone with patience for this lazy outlook. Someone who might care that you are developmentally arrested.

Doing something that you know will lead to someones death. After a good time of slavery.

You haven't thought this through, I can see that. You probably shouldn't try at this point. The results would be mixed and likely catastrophic. That's like saying no doctor should perform life-saving surgery, because that just leads to postponing death.

I think if you had kids, it wouldn't be that much different from murder.

If death is unavoidable life is not.

You have a point there. You at least seem to be doing a decent job of avoiding it.

cousinbasil wrote:WTF are you talking about, Bobo? WTF do you mean "stung an apology to pedophilia with it"? What does that even mean? It's vaguely insulting - vaguely because your meaning as usual is opaque. I think in your Cro Magnon way, you are linking what I said with pedophilia. That's just stupid. If pedophilia bells are being rung for you from what I wrote, I think that says way more about you than you intended.

(Stung lol, was a typo for strung)
It is like, I enjoy doing it, I know it's hard work for all of us, so you've got to find some good kids, I'm living only my life... You can use those terms in defence of almost anything, the same way, for example, that people will kill in the name of their 'god'.

I was building assertions over assertions, the style of it is kinda of strange, but I don't think that you have a strong point in support of reproduction, if you do have feel free to state it.

The comparison of child raising with child abuse is impotant because:

"The title refers to the fact that although sexual abuse is usually portrayed by professionals and the media as a traumatic experience for the victims when it happens — meaning frightening, overwhelming, painful — it rarely is. Most victims do not understand they are being victimized, because they are too young to understand sex, the perpetrators are almost always people they know and trust, and violence or penetration rarely occurs. “Confusion” is the most frequently reported word when victims are asked to describe what the experience was like. Confusion is a far cry from trauma."
"The kids don’t know what’s going on, and they often enjoy it. They’re not going to resist.""http://www.salon.com/2010/01/19/trauma_ ... singleton/
"(Suicide) is a leading cause of death among teenagers and adults under 35."
Kids are pretty much defenceless, until it is too late and they are beyond help.

People should not be reckless on the issues of reproduction. It's not a matter of enough money and being in love. Heck, people will have kids because they have nothing else to do, or to hold on to a relationship.
Humans are still trapped into the eat, fight, fuck scheme.

"WTF do you mean "stung an apology to pedophilia with it"?"
Hope it is clear, it's like 'reproducing because babies are cute'. <- may apologize for -> (I raped her because she was cute.)

"Ultimate word on what matter?"
This was a poor choice of words since you didn't claimed such. Enjoyment does not correspond to consent.

"Are you saying because child abuse occurs, no one should have or love children?"
Someone who will abuse children should not have them. Kids as a property of parents will support 'hidden' abuse, like financial, social and emotional coercion.

"That's like saying no doctor should perform life-saving surgery, because that just leads to postponing death."
When you reproduce you do add a third entity in the math.

"How is having kids different from murder?"
I do think things can be put this way, if I do 'X' - 'Y' will die in 50 years or 5 years or 5 minutes. 'Y' will die should be the cause of concern independently of the time that it will take to kill 'Y'. More to the point is that people do not consent to their death, and you are the one making the decision of bringing them to life, you better have a good reason to do that. Moreover if people could choose their own parents, and do think of everyone you may have met in your life, would everyone get to be choosen?

"How is having kids different from murder?"
I do think things can be put this way, if I do 'X' - 'Y' will die in 50 years or 5 years or 5 minutes. 'Y' will die should be the cause of concern independently of the time that it will take to kill 'Y'. More to the point is that people do not consent to their death, and you are the one making the decision of bringing them to life, you better have a good reason to do that. Moreover if people could choose their own parents, and do think of everyone you may have met in your life, would everyone get to be choosen?

"........."
Kids are pretty much defenceless, until it is too late and they are beyond help.

Well, then you are responding to that quote, not to what I was saying.

First of all, some basic meta-consideration. If no one had children, the species would disappear in less than a generation. Secondly, one can compare child-raising to golf or clouds or ditch-digging. Comparing child raising to child abuse does not identify the two, since they are antithetical. It even strengthens my point, which was evidently not your intent.

People should not be reckless on the issues of reproduction. It's not a matter of enough money and being in love. Heck, people will have kids because they have nothing else to do, or to hold on to a relationship.
Humans are still trapped into the eat, fight, fuck scheme.

Again, I do not see how I was advocating recklessness. If it is not a matter of having enough money or loving a partner, maybe it ought to be. I have enough money, and I have been in love. But the two have never occurred simultaneously. Hence, I am not married and I have sired no children. Yet I greatly enjoy lending a hand in rearing the children of my siblings. Which is what I have said. I dunno, call me reckless.

cousinbasil: "WTF do you mean "stung an apology to pedophilia with it"?"Bobo: Hope it is clear, it's like 'reproducing because babies are cute'. <- may apologize for -> (I raped her because she was cute.)

What's clear is that this reasoning is muddled. You write: "<- may apologize for ->" as if to link two things. It seems like you are saying the person who thinks the first thing is likely to think the second thing. But you yourself said there were many reasons for reproducing, not all of them good. But are there any good reasons for raping someone? How about "I raped her because she is blind and can't identify me"? Is that better? Bobo, there can't be a good motivation for rape, because it is a crime and worse. Reproduction is not a crime whatever the motivation. Does this really have to be spelled out for you?

cousinbasil: That's like saying no doctor should perform life-saving surgery, because that just leads to postponing death.Bobo: When you reproduce you do add a third entity in the math.

All right then, suppose the doctor is an OB/GYN and does an emergency c-section to deliver a complicated breach-baby. He is adding a third person into the math; worse, he may be saving the life of an obviously fertile woman who may now go on to bear more children. This then would be multiple murder, by your reasoning.

"How is having kids different from murder?"
I do think things can be put this way, if I do 'X' - 'Y' will die in 50 years or 5 years or 5 minutes. 'Y' will die should be the cause of concern independently of the time that it will take to kill 'Y'. More to the point is that people do not consent to their death, and you are the one making the decision of bringing them to life, you better have a good reason to do that. Moreover if people could choose their own parents, and do think of everyone you may have met in your life, would everyone get to be choosen?

Of course I see what you are saying, but I refuse to entertain this as sound reasoning. I agree that people should have a good reason for deciding to have children, and should be fairly certain they have the ability, wherewithal, and dedication to rear progeny. But taking into consideration that the new human will not want to die is not in any way pertinent to any rational decision-making. If it were, then it would be rational to say, okay, let's have the child and make it want to die.

Look, the human experience is what it is. Everyone is born, everyone dies. No one has ever gotten to choose his biological parents, although judges in divorce cases often ask a minor child which parent he would rather live with.

It is how one navigates one's own version of this human experience that matters. You do your best, both for yourself and those for whom you are responsible. To worry about things like people don't consent to their deaths - which they sometimes actually do - in deciding whether or not to reproduce is faulty reasoning. There are no perfect lives, or guarantees of any sort. The most well-adjusted humans are made to grasp this at an early age. On the other hand, your objection is like thinking "I might lose" is a legitimate reason not to play the game. If it were, there would never be a game in the first place.

Finding the kids in my life endlessly amusing is not something I would even remotely feel that I should second-guess. Not only did I not make the decision to bring them into this world, two of my brothers and their spouses didn't make the choice, either, since the kids are adopted. It's win-win. It's not abuse. It's called life.

If you are wondering how smart a person may be, the best indicator is how much money they have in the bank. And how
much money they may own is important. A person's balance sheet is a look into his soul.

juro wrote:If you are wondering how smart a person may be, the best indicator is how much money they have in the bank. And how
much money they may own is important. A person's balance sheet is a look into his soul.

juro wrote:If you are wondering how smart a person may be, the best indicator is how much money they have in the bank. And how
much money they may own is important. A person's balance sheet is a look into his soul.

Generally speaking, this is one of the stupidest things i've ever read.

Think about it. A man who practices self-restraint and controls his vices will control
his expenses. If he is a shrewd negotiator at job interviews, his paycheck will be
more than enough to meet his needs. Or maybe he is good at playing the stock market.

juro wrote:If you are wondering how smart a person may be, the best indicator is how much money they have in the bank. And how
much money they may own is important. A person's balance sheet is a look into his soul.

Generally speaking, this is one of the stupidest things i've ever read.

Have to agree with mental v here. If the person is so smart, why is he keeping his money in the bank instead of investing it?

Besides, there are people who come by their wealth honestly, and many who come by it by cheating, lying, and stealing. The balance sheet is a number, a bottom line; it tells you nothing.

No. Multiple rules to a construct that is deconstructed by the thinker because of the rules themselves. It's my signature of anhilation and my monetary philosophy, exert self as little as possible in order to sustain highest entropic rate of social decay as possible. Subliminal war with the self, when you no longer know what your existence consists of. Am i a mirror of my cogs?

cousinbasil wrote:
Have to agree with mental v here. If the person is so smart, why is he keeping his money in the bank instead of investing it?.

It's called being general. I was trying to make a simple point. The bank could be any financial asset.

cousinbasil wrote:
Besides, there are people who come by their wealth honestly, and many who come by it by cheating, lying, and stealing. The balance sheet is a number, a bottom line; it tells you nothing.

Sure it does. The bottom line is what matters most. If you have good results, isn't that proof of
a mind at work? It may be relative but compare it to a drunk good-for-nothing homeless bum.